KOTIPALLI NAGESWARA ALIAS KOTUPALLI Vs. YANDRAPALLI NAGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Counsel.

(2.) On 28-10-1993, this Court made the following order:

(3.) Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, the learned Counsel representing the appellant would comment that the suit is based on a promissory note and the Court of first instance had arrived at the correct conclusion by decreeing the suit, but the appellate Court had erred in reversing the Judgment and Decree of the Court of first instance. The learned Counsel also would point out that the defendant failed to give reply to the registered notice prior to the institution of the suit. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and made an attempt to explain the scope and ambit thereof. The learned Counsel also would comment that though there was no whisper at all in the Court of first instance that the signature of the second attestor was introduced later, the appellate Court recorded certain findings at para-9. Even otherwise, the learned Counsel would contend that inasmuch as evidence relatiing to the proof of execution of the promissory note being available, the decree made by the Court of first instance to be restored.